Women offenders: characteristics, treatment, and rehabilitation

¶ … delineation of the research hypotheses. The chapter will conclude with an outline of the remaining chapters.

Relevant Background Information

Increasingly, female offenders and issues associated with their incarceration have been identified as a problem of concern. Evidence suggests that female offenders represent a growing population within the U.S. penal system. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of female inmates in state prisons increased 75% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994). Between 1981 and 1991, the number of females incarcerated in federal penal institutions also increased by 24%. Since 1980 the population of women inmates has increased by more than 200% (Gabel & Johnston, 1995). Women inmates currently account for 9% of the entire prison population and of this group, 57% are women of color.

The majority of women are arrested for nonviolent crimes. Typical offenses include fraud, use of illegal drugs, and prostitution (Singer, Bussey, Song, & Lunghofer, 1995). Evidence also exists that suggests that incarcerated women experience many problems in addition to their criminal acts that may have influenced their engagement in criminal activity (Gabel & Johnston, 1995; Singer et al., 1995).

Statement of the Problem

As the numbers of incarcerated women has continued to increase both in state and federal prisons, there remains a need to more fully understand the factors influencing and associated with the imprisonment of women within the U.S. society. It is important to gain a more comprehensive perspective as to the differences that exist between female offenders in state and federal prisons, the crimes for which they were charged, the sentencing associated with their incarceration, and the types of services/treatment programs available to them.

Such information is critical for those who work with females in the justice system as well as for policy makers concerned with facilitating and implementing more effective policies aimed at deterring female crime.

Purpose and Objectives of the Study

The purpose of the study is to provide an in-depth overview of female offenders incarcerated within federal and state prisons. An effort will be made to specifically obtain information on the experiences of female offenders in California. It is the intent of the study to provide information on the differences that may exist between federal and state female offenders that may be useful in further aiding professionals in the criminal justice system in the process of developing and implementing future strategies for deterring female crime; initiating plans for more conducive prison environments for women, if needed; and exploring policy options in relation to female offenders that is based on empirical evidence.

Rationale for the Study

The rationale for the study is based on the fact that female crime and incarceration have steadily increased since the 1980s. The increase in female offenders is documentation that there are factors that may be influencing these increases. One such factor may be the experience of imprisonment itself. As many female offenders will be released from prison at some point in their lifetime, while it is hoped that they will not engage in future instances of criminal behavior, the potential for future offenses exists. While each individual woman is ultimately responsible for decisions made regarding engagement in criminal behavior, there is a need to more fully understand and identify factors within the state and federal prison systems that may or may not influence and act as a deterrent to future criminal behavior.

Definition of Key Terms

The key terms are terms used frequently within the study and are important in understanding the purpose of the study. The key terms are identified and defined as follows:

Female Offender: a woman who is incarcerated in a federal or state prison after having been sentenced on the basis of having committed and been found guilty of a crime.

Limitations of the Study

While the findings of the study will have utility in further understanding female incarceration within the U.S. federal and state prison system, it will not be possible to generalize the findings to women offenders and the experience of incarceration outside of the U.S. The study findings are further limited in that secondary data sources were utilized to gather the information necessary to address the purpose and objectives of the study. While this information is valid and useful, it would have been helpful to have the opportunity to also include information obtained via surveys and interviews with women offenders. However, such research efforts were beyond the scope of this study.

Theoretical Framework

Historically, theoretical views on those who engaged in criminal behaviors posited that the offender was best understood as a wrongdoer or sinner who needed to be punished (Forer, 1994). In early accounts on female offenders, they were described as representative of an evil class who needed punitive measures brought against them rather than efforts to rehabilitate them. Potential factors external to the individual that may have influenced engagement in criminal offenses were ignored and blame was placed on the individual, her family, and genetic effects (Forer, 1994).

With the ongoing increases in the rate of female incarceration, other theories have emerged to explain female criminality that includes consideration of environmental factors. Simon and Landis (1991) identified four major theories of why women commit crimes. According to the authors, one theory is that which is based on the work of Adler, suggesting that as women have become more liberated within society, they have taken on roles that at one time were traditionally male roles. As a consequence of assuming such roles, women are thought to behave in ways that are also traditionally more recognized as characteristic of males. Consequently, as explained by Simon and Landis, females have come to behave more aggressively and pushy. According to the authors, on the basis of this theory which is known as the masculinity thesis, "good girls are still those who maintain their allegiance to traditional social roles, while bad girls are those who act like men" (Simon & Landis, 1991, p. 2). Thus, the increase of females within prisons is largely equated with the changes that have occurred to women as they have become more masculine in a more liberated world.

A second theory identified by Simon and Landis (1991) is the opportunity thesis. Similar to the masculine thesis, the opportunity thesis suggests that as women attain social positions similar to men, they also begin to engage in and develop criminal trends and behavioral patterns similar to men. On the basis of this theory, criminality is largely the result of and influenced by the place that women find themselves in within the social structure, the occupational sphere and the personal/family sphere. This theory, according to Simon and Landis, places extensive importance on the occupational sphere and suggests that as the employment patterns of men and women become similar, so too will their patterns of employment related crimes. Arguments against this theory suggest that the theory is really only useful in explaining white collar crime rather than other types of crime committed by female offenders.

A third theory reviewed by Simon and Landis (1991) is the opportunity/marginalization thesis. This theory suggests that women commit crimes due to the lack of opportunities available to them to make money. This theory suggests that as greater freedom and rights have been given to women, equality in economic opportunities have not been made accessible to all women. Female offenders, on the basis of this theory, are those that remain in employment situations largely characterized by poor pay and unrewarding, insecure work. Thus, female crime represents a rational response to poverty and economic insecurity (Simon & Landis, 1991).

The fourth theory reviewed by Simon and Landis (1991) is the chivalry thesis which suggests that in response to the women's movement, the criminal justice system has lessened their leniency towards women who commit crimes. With chivalry no longer available to women, according to the authors, the criminal justice system has resorted to that the mentality of "if it's equality they want, it's equality they'll get"(Simon & Landis, 1991, p. 12). However, the authors explained that there truly is little evidence of chivalry in the court system. When favors are granted, as noted by the authors, white, upper-class women are probably most often the recipients of such favors. Therefore, as explained by Simon and Landis, as the typical female offender is not a white, upper-class woman, the potential that chivalry impacts criminality within women is doubtful.

While not reviewed by Simon and Landis (1991), there is a fifth theory of relevance to women and criminality that appears to also offer a conceptual foundation for this study. This theoretical framework suggests that environmental factors play a major role in whether a woman engages in criminal behavior or not. One such factor that may attribute to criminal behavior is the experiences of women have as victims of both child and adult abuse. Herman (1992) suggested that adults who experienced abuse as a child have difficulty in negotiating demands associated with adult life. With little skill in dealing with the demands of everyday adult living, females may find it difficult to engage in non-criminal behaviors while attempting to cope with the demands of adult. In a study conducted by Pollack-Byrne (1990), an association was found between female criminalization and abuse, further suggesting the relevance of considering abuse as it impacts the long-term behaviors of women.

Research Hypotheses

The research hypotheses to be investigated within the study include:

Null Hypothesis 1: There are no differences between state and federal female offenders.

Alternative Hypothesis 1: State and federal female offenders will vary on the basis of the types of crimes committed and for which they were charged as well as sentencing and other factors.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Within Chapter Two, a literature review will be provided of relevance to female offenders imprisoned within state and federal prisons within the U.S. Both seminal and current literature will be examined.

History of Women and Incarceration

According to Rafter (1985), at the beginning of the 19th century, relatively few women were imprisoned and those that were incarcerated were confined in separate quarters or wings of men's prisons. Similar to male prisoners, as noted by Rafter, women suffered from filthy conditions, overcrowding, and harsh treatment. Additionally, women had to endure even more hardships, including sexual abuse, which was reportedly a common occurrence. According to Freedman (1981), sexual abuse was apparently so acceptable that one prison in Indiana actually ran a prostitution service for male guards, using female prisoners. As well, very often female prisoner were expected to fend for themselves and were left completely on their own as prisons refused to use money to hire a female guard/matron. Similarly, as reported by Freedman, women had less access to the physician and chaplain and did not go to workshops, mess halls, or exercise yards as men did. Food and needlework were brought to their quarters, and they remained in that area for the full term of their sentence.

As reported by Rafter (1985), criminal conviction and imprisonment of women surged after the Civil War. Freedman (1981) indicated that this occurred in the North as a consequence of men's absence during wartime, the rise of industrialization, as well as the impact of the dominant sexual ideology of the nineteenth century Victorianism. According to Freedman, Victorianism created a double standard in that it supported the criminalization of certain behaviors for women but not for men. By mid-century, as reported by Rafter, the spiraling rates associated with the incarceration of women, both in the North and South, necessitated the emergence of separate women's quarters. This practical necessity opened the door to changes in the nature of the imprisonment of women.

According to Freedman (1981), many advocates also began a campaign to end the sexual abuse of women in prisons which further helped to influence the opening of separate prisons for women. By 1940 twenty-three states had separate women's prisons. Separate prisons for women became known as "independent" women's prisons even though they were independent only in their physical construction. As reported by Freedman, in all other aspects, women's prisons fostered all forms of dependency in the incarcerated women and were an integral part of the prison system.

As explained by Freedman (1981), while prisons for women did not develop as separate institutions until almost a century after men's prisons, it is not so much this time lag which differentiates the development of prisons for women from those for men. As explained by the author, the difference comes from the establishment of a bifurcated (two-part) system, the roots of which can be found in the patriarchal and white supremacist aspects of life in the U.S. At the time. According to Freedman, understanding bifurcation represents a step towards understanding the incarceration of women in the U.S.

On the one hand, there were custodial institutions which corresponded by and large to men's prisons. The purpose of custodial prisons, as the name implies, was to warehouse prisoners. There was no pretense of rehabilitation. On the other hand, there were reformatories which, as the name implies, were intended to be more benevolent institutions that "uplifted" or "improved" the character of the women held there. According to Freedman, reformatories had no male counterparts. Almost every state had a custodial woman's prison, but in the Northeast and Midwest the majority of incarcerated women were in reformatories. In the South, the few reformatories that existed were exclusively white. However, these differences are not, in essence, geographical; they are racial. The women in the custodial institutions were black whether in the North or the South, and had to undergo the most degrading conditions, while it was mainly white women who were sent to the reformatories, institutions which had the ostensible philosophy of benevolence and sisterly and therapeutic ideals.

Alternatively, as explained by Freedman, while reformatories were used to house white female prisoners, prison camps began emerging in which African-American women prisoners were confined. White women who were sent to prison camps were those who had much serious offenses than those white women offenders in reformatories. As further explained by Freedman, techniques of slavery were largely used within prison camps and reformatories, with states forcing women to work on the state-owned penal plantations as well as leasing women to local farms, mines, and railroads. Women were also forced to work on chain gangs and were submitted to brutal and degrading treatment. For example, as noted by Freedman, women were whipped on the buttocks in the presence of men and were also forced to defecate right where they worked, in front of men.

According to Freedman (1981), eventually central penitentiaries were built or rebuilt and many women were shipped there from prison farms because they were considered "dead hands" as compared with the men. Like the prison camps, custodial women's prisons were overwhelmingly black, regardless of their regionality.

According to Freedman, women in custodial prisons were frequently convicted of felony charges; most commonly for "crimes" against property, often petty theft. Only about a third of female felons were serving time for violent crimes. Both the rates for property crimes and violent crimes were much higher than for the women at the reformatories. On the other hand, there were relatively fewer women incarcerated for public order offenses (fornication, adultery, drunkenness, etc.) which were the most common in the reformatories. Freedman indicated that the conditions of custodial prisons were horrendous, as they were in prisons for men. They were generally unsanitary, lacking adequate toilet and bathing facilities. Medical attention was rarely available. Women were either left totally idle or forced into hard labor. Women with mental problems were locked in solitary confinement and ignored.

According to Freedman (1981), as the 20th century unfolded, industrialization was in full swing, bringing fundamental changes in social relations as well the emergence of the Progressive reform movement. It was in this context that reformatories for women proliferated. The reformatories that emerged were more humane and conditions were better than at the women's penitentiaries (custodial institutions) or earlier reformatories.. According to Freedman, the newer reformatories were often staffed by women, eliminating much male abuse and the fear of attack. They also resulted in more freedom of movement and opened up a variety of opportunities for "men's" work in the operation of the prison. Children of prisoners up to two years old could stay in most institutions. They usually had cottages, flower gardens, and no fences. They offered discussions on the law, academics and training, and women were often paroled more readily than in custodial institutions (Freedman, 1981). However, it is important to note that the women in the reformatories were largely white and from the working class. Fewer women of color were incarcerated in them.

Rafter (1985) explained that black women were not expected to act like "ladies" in the first place and therefore were reportedly not deemed worthy of such rehabilitation. According to Rafter, reformatory training was focused on fostering ladylike behavior and perfecting house-wifely skills. In this way, as noted by Rafter, it encouraged dependency and women's subjugation. Additionally, another aspect of reformatory retraining was to isolate women and to strip them of environmental influences in order to instill them with new values. To this end, family ties were obstructed, with letters possibly arriving every two months and were censored. Additionally, as explained by Rafter, visits were allowed four times a year for those who were on the approved list. Sentencing was often open-ended and based on the notion that a woman would stay for as long as it took to accomplish the task of reforming her.

Beginning in the 1930s, as radicalism was repressed and both the progressive and the feminist movements declined, women offenders were returned to penal institutions (Rafter, 1985). The reformatory buildings still stood and were filled with prisoners and the conditions of incarceration deteriorated extensively, suffering from cutbacks and lack of funding. As well, as explained by Rafter, there was slow but steady transformation of the inmate population. Increasingly, the white women convicted of misdemeanors were given probation, paroled or sent back to local jails. As white women left the reformatories, the buildings themselves were transformed into custodial prisons, institutions that repeated the terrible conditions of the past.

Comparison of Female and Male Incarceration Rates

During the last twenty years, the rates of incarceration of women have significantly increased. According to Mumola and Beck (1996), in spite of these increasing rates, the rate of incarceration for women continues to be far lower than for men (51 out of 100,000 women as compared to 819 out of 100,000 men) the number of women. However, on the basis of information provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997), the number of women incarcerated in prisons and jails is growing at a faster rate than the number of men. As reported by the Bureau, between 1985 and 1995, the number of men doubled, from 691,800 to 1,437,600, but the number of women tripled, from 40,500 to 113,100. According to Gilliard and Beck (1997), in 1997, women accounted for 6.4% of all prisoners nationwide, up from 4.1% in 1980 and 5.7% in Specialized Needs of Female Offenders

In reporting the findings of recent research, Morash, Bynum and Koons (1998) indicated that female offenders have needs that are distinctly different from male offenders. According to the researchers, these differences have been found to stem in part from the disproportionate victimization of women from sexual or physical abuse as well as the role women have in responsibility for children. As well, female offenders have been found to be more likely to be addicted to drugs and to have mental illnesses. According to a 1996 national jail survey, 48% of female inmates and 13% of male inmates reported having been sexually or physically abused, or both, prior to admission (Harlow, 1998). As reported by Owen and Bloom (1995), other studies have found far higher proportions of women reporting a history of abuse.

Health needs also represents an area in which incarcerated women may have specialized needs. Research findings based on a survey of women prisoners in California, Connecticut and Florida in 1994-1995 indicated that one half of those incarcerated reported that they were experiencing physical health problems that interfered with their lives (Acoca & Austin, 1996). As reported by Maruschak (1997), HIV presents special health related issues to women in prison as well, with the number of infected women incarcerated having increased by more than 88% since 1991. Findings have also suggested that incarcerated women also tend to use health care services more than men for various reasons including pregnancy and a higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV (Acoca & Austin, 1996).

As reported by the Bureau of Justice (1998), women offenders also have specialized substance abuse needs. While the drug offense by women increased significantly in the 1990s, as noted in the report by the Bureau of Justice, the proportion of female offenders who are substance abusers have increased dramatically. In 1994, approximately 67% of females arrested tested positive for drugs, with female arrestees more likely to abuse cocaine and opiates, while male arrestees are more likely to test positive for marijuana use. Additionally, as documented within the Bureau of Justice report, female offenders are also more likely than male offenders to report and be diagnosed with lifetime prevalence rates of alcohol abuse/dependence disorders.

As also documented by the Bureau of Justice (1998), women offenders also have specialized educational and vocational training needs. According to the Bureau of Justice, female inmates are significantly less likely than male inmates to be employed at the time of arrest. Thus, as indicated by the Bureau, there is an urgent need to consider the educational and vocational needs of women in order to assist them in developing job skills and good work habits because, upon release, these women have been found to most often provide support for their families.

According to Morash et al., (1998), current evidence suggests that prisons within the U.S. have little special provision, either in management or programming, for meeting the needs of women. Consequently, as identified by the researchers, in order to be more responsive to the needs of female offenders, a number of changes need to occur including the following:

Improved classification and screening for women prisoners for needs related to children, spouse abuse, and childhood sexual abuse;

Application and use of management styles different from those for men, including managerial characteristics that respond to expressions of emotions and ability to communicate openly with offenders;

Use of alternatives to incarceration for more women, including work release.

Morash et al. also reported that there is a need for further documentation of the types of programming available for women offenders, the characteristics of these interventions, and the perceived nature of effective programs for this offender population. Similarly, as noted by the researchers, further research efforts need to be directed towards documenting the best management approaches to classification, housing, staff selection, and staff training in institutions housing women.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to obtain the information necessary to address the purpose and goals of the study as well as to test the research hypotheses, secondary data was used from research reports published by the U.S. Bureau of Justice of relevance to women and incarceration. The student reviewed 10 research reports published since 1990 and used the findings to generate the information needed for the study.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The results of the study are organized and presented by the research hypothesis under investigation. An analysis associated with the results will be presented.

Research Hypothesis: Findings

The first research hypothesis investigated in the study was as follows:

Null Hypothesis 1: There are no differences between state and federal female offenders.

Alternative Hypothesis 1: State and federal female offenders will vary on the basis of the types of crimes committed and for which they were charged as well as sentencing and other factors.

The findings of the study indicated that female offenders in state and federal prisons differ in a number of different areas. First of all, race is a factor that accounts for differences among female offenders. It was found that the majority of women who are under probation supervision are white and those held in state and federal prisons largely reflect minority groups, including black, Hispanic and other races. In state prisons, it was found that Hispanics account for about 1 in 7 women but nearly 1 in 3 female prisoners in federal prison with blacks accounting for the vast majority of women prisoners held in both state and federal prisons.

The findings of the study also indicated that women in state and federal prisons tend to be older than those women found in local jails or under probation supervision.

While about 1 in 5 women on probation or in local jails are under age 25, 1 in 8 State prisoners and 1 in 11 Federal prisoners are of this age. Federal prisons tend to house the oldest of women offenders with nearly a quarter of inmates are at least 45 years old.

In terms of marital status, it was found that women in state prisons tend to be largely represented by women who have never been married, with nearly half of women prisoners representing non-married women. No information was found on marital status regarding women incarcerated in federal prisons.

In terms of education, the findings indicate that the majority of women who are incarcerated are at least high school graduates. Documentation was found that suggested that an estimated 60% of those on probation, 55% of those in local jails, 56% of those in state prisons, and 73% of those in federal prison have completed high school, and 30% - 40% of high school graduates have attended some college or more.

In relation to female inmates and their children, it was found that large numbers of incarcerated women have minor children under the age of 18. Approximately 7 in 10 women under correctional sanction have minor children with 72% of women on probation, 70% of women held in local jails, 65% of women in state prisons, and 59% of women in federal prisons also having young children. As was documented within the findings, these estimates have been translated to indicate that there are more than 1.3 million minor children who are the offspring of women under correctional sanction; more than a quarter million of these children have mothers who are serving time in prison or jail. About two-thirds of women in state prisons and half of women in federal prisons who had young children had lived with those children prior to entering prison.